Posts
Christianity is a religion of translation, transition and migration from previous religions. Because of the Paulists and other Hellenistic add-ons, is more theoretical, with conditional joy, and strained, convoluted guilt and denial. Christianity has at its core a determined mindset to parse the humanity from us, most obviously in its suppression of sex, and notion of "Original Sin." By splitting God into three, and having a mutilated corpse as its central icon, Christianity becomes Anti-Messiah as a Messiah brings peace...not gore, Anti-Semetism. BY its nature, Christianity is a contradiction as the story of a Jesus goes all the way back to Attis (a Greek god from around 1700 BC), Mithra (Persian god 1200 BC) Kirshna (Indian God 900BD) and even the Iranian Prophet Zoroaster (630 BC), now with all these gods and prophets that that the biblical Jesus is based on how can there be no god but the Christian god?
A major theme of his book "WHAT’S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY" is that there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory between theism in general or Christianity in particular on the one hand, and modern science on the other. To say that there are no inconsistencies or contradictions between theism and science is to say there is no difference between a Diamond and a clump of Coal. In this case the coal being the dark, unstable structure that falters under fire and science being the diamond with structure and development that grows as it is put under pressure. The notion that the universe has a beginning is a young idea, and there are many more to say otherwise which are just as young and valid as the next. I personally think the big bang is the most accurate account of what may have happened, Stephen Hawking goes into how the event was inevitable given the law of gravity. Where a deity comes into play is when you ignore the evidence around you. To say that the laws of the universe are god’s law is like saying to a child that chocolate milk comes from brown cows. Just because we don’t know the whole scene yet does not mean that there is a man behind the curtain pulling strings.
Another point is that he Dinsesh D'Souza tries to rebut the idea that religion in general or Christianity in particular are responsible for the crimes of history. He claims that Atheist hide from the atrocities committed by atheists. Where are Atheists trying to hide? I, as well as many other Atheists, am perfectly willing to admit that it is a fact; human beings are capable of the more heinous acts and atrocities. Atheism is the absence of delusion that there must be a god. Political agenda and economic philosophy are not requisite to be atheist. Atheism gives no moral guidance, code amongst brethren or any sort of common dogma to follow. As the French Mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace once said when questions about the creator “I Have no need for that Hypothesis,” simply put we are perfectly capable of determining right from wrong, our own statures of moral and do not need dogma or common convention to lead us to enlightenment. To say that bad things happened because of atheism is analogous to bad things happen when people wear colored clothes. Atheists, just like theists, have done bad things. It is the reason for these bad things that comes to question. For example you mention in Chapter 19 of your book the Soviets. I am going to make an argument here that may sound cold and callous and disrespectful of the dead but, I assure it is not. From a propaganda point of view when waging war and being tyrannical, destroying the other forms of influence is a major tactic that leads to success. So in the shoes of those in charge, if a religion or group was against me, or if I felt they were a counter influence to my brand of intoxication of the mind then of course, I would be done with them. But this is not to be put at the heels of Atheism, as it is not an intent to spread atheism or rule by atheism (which itself would be a notion which I would argue against myself) as was the intent of historical atrocities made in the name of the Christian god in an effort to combat heresy, which is the historical intent of these callous acts.
The author also makes bold claims of an inferred scientific designer. I honestly can not help but become exhausted about this whole "science proves god." No, science does not show a design, a plan or an architect for either the universe or even more specific life. In an interview the author found it ironic that some believe in a multi-universe theory. he makes the leap from, saying the universe if "fine Tuned" for life. Where in any scientific publication does it ever say that the universe is prime tuned just for the purpose of life. I would say the universe if a very hostile place for life, and that although it is statistically plausible that life does in fact exist else where in the universe, please pay attention here, it does not mean that the universe is a nice fluffy cloud and life just happens to pop up around every corner. So infer that the universe, or life in the universe is plentiful and abundant is not only an insult to science, but also an insult to your own intelligence and understanding. Multiple universes is not a cop out to how life exists, in fact if has nothing to do with life, it is simply another theory to try to explain the observations and models that we have of the current universe.
The author also stipulates about the atheistic attributes of Marxism. I am the first to observe, Marx very much disregarded theism, deism, pantheism...pretty much if a god was at the center of the idea then Marx was against it. In a letter Marx wrote
“...the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogey man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people.” [Letter to Ruge, November 24, 1842]
He clearly is explaining that he insists that people be told the content of the thought rather than just the thought itself and rely that those perpetuating the idea had put their due diligence into logically deducing its correctness.
Marxism does express the conjecture that violence will ensue during any revolution, that it is inevitable. I would agree with that, I have yet to read of a true bloodless revolution. However, even though ti does allow for this realistic perpetration of violence, it does make it clear that the belief that the (or social classes that are against revolution against the norm will inevitably use violence against the organized workers' movement. As a realist can you find any historical inaccuracy with that statement. Marxism does not promote violence, but rather accepts that it is a realistic outcome of the revolutionary agenda. I am not saying I support the ideology, or the outcomes of that philosophy just submitting fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment